Talk:Sheila Jackson-Lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sheila Jackson-Lee article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Houston Press & Free Republic citations

The Houston Press and the Free Republic may use their Free Press rights to represent their POVs, but Wikipedia works on an NPOV basis. The number of citations from the HP gossip columns and weblogs is excessive, considering that they are so obviously partisan. Right now the material looks like it should be re-organized into a section " ==Houston Press campaign against SJL==". I don't follow Houston politics, but even so this appears to be overly reliant on references from her political opponents. -Willmcw 12:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw - you need to look at the links - especially the Free Republic articles - more closely. They were used as sources because in many cases the articles they contain are no longer online from the original source. One of them is an article from the capitol hill newspaper The Hill. Another is an article from the capitol hill newspaper Roll Call. A third is from the Houston Chronicle. These are ALL mainstream news sources and valid citations. Free Republic simply happens to be the location where electronic copies of the articles can still be found online.
You are also incorrect in your suggestion the Houston Press gossip column is the only source being used. Only three out of the nine news articles cited are to the Houston Press and the main allegation of the Houston Press stories - Ms. Jackson Lee's disruptive behavior on airlines - is corroborated in The Hill, which also published an account of the exact same thing. You should also know that the Houston Press is a liberal weekly alternative paper that agrees with Jackson Lee on most issues, so she's not simply taking heat from the right wing. I also do not see any weblogs in the links.
I do agree that there probably needs to be more biographical information on Jackson Lee to balance out the top of the article, but the "controversies" section needs to stay because she is a very polarizing figure in Texas. That being the case, the issue for editing in this article is not what needs to be removed but what could be added to the top section.Rangerdude 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE - I located one of the articles on The Hill's website and changed the link from freerepublic to the original. I also removed your edit that attributed the airline incidents to only the "Houston Press gossip column", which is not true, and added the reference to The Hill there. Will this satisfy your complaints enough to remove the tag? Also, if you agree that a more detailed biography in the top of the article is needed would you be willing to author it? Often the best way to balance the article is to contribute something new to it.Rangerdude

Thanks for your quick response and for finding direct sources. This article still has a strange tone, full of what look like cheap jabs. At the same time the substantial criticisms mentioned in the Houston Chronicle article are barely discussed. I will remove the NPOV tag from the article, though I believe the article still has a POV. Frankly, there are other people about whom I'd rather research and write articles. Though you may have strong opinions about the subject of the article it is still your responsibility as an editor to write a NPOV article. It's a struggle for all of us. Thanks for contributing. Cheer, -Willmcw 01:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Like many articles here, this one is a continuous work in progress. I concur fully that there needs to be more general biography to balance the whole of the article. The controversy section should stay though because it is in need of mention simply because she's so polarizing. I'll add what I can to each section as time permits, but as I said it's a problem that will resolve itself simply by expanding the articleRangerdude 06:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gossip Columns

Describing the Houston Press as a "free paper" and its author as a "gossip" column is simply not germane to the citation. The latter term in itself and the former term in its use appear to have been added for no other reason than to convey a pejorative upon the Houston Press as a source - which constitutes a POV ad hominem, since neither piece of information has any bearing on whether or not the story occurred. Please remove these POV edits. Rangerdude 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are germane to helping the reader evaluate the veracity of the allegation. It directly bears on the usefulness of the information. If you can think of euphemisms for "gossip column" and "free newspaper" which are still accurate then I wouldn't object to using them. -Willmcw 23:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The Houston Press is already named in 3 different places in the article plus an external link. Naming it for each and every single piece of factual information taken from its pages is unnecessary and redundant. Rangerdude 02:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not a factual piece of information, it's uncorroborated gossip. If the Press weren't used for so many allegations, then we wouldn't need to refer to it so many times. -Willmcw 03:29, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's been unchallenged in print for years and has specific corroborating interviews in the article. There's also no need to refer to the HP excessively since each and every one of their articles used is directly linked as a source. That is the point of footnote style source links - so any reader who wants the information can easily see where it came from with a simple click! Rangerdude 03:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link doesn't work from here

  • Keeping with her camera-friendly reputation, Jackson Lee is one of the few members of Congress outside of the leadership who seeks time for a House floor speech almost every day. The congresswoman's reputation as a "floor hog" has also given rise to a humorous betting game among Capitol Hill staffers in other member's offices in which quarters are deposited into a jar each time she speaks. The office staff in possession of the jar when a whole day goes by without Jackson Lee speaking wins and gets to keep the contents. [1]

The page that is linked as the source for this paragraph doesn't work. "Service Unavailable 404 Not Found". -Willmcw 22:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

    • I think this might work. [2] I do note that the attrib to Jackson Lee by the author is of the wink wink nudge nudge variety; this maybe should be made clearer in our article. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan memorial

As written, this paragraph is simply POV. It's written as a statement of fact that this should be considered a critique of JL's "publicity seeking." But it cites no critical source. If you have a source that criticized her for this action, cite it. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be content that was removed, and I found it interesting (I hadn't heard about it before). I don't really see what's POV about it, assuming the that the facts are correct. Lee sponsored a memorial, and some people got their knickers in a wad over it. I think that's interesting and notable in the context of this section. There is zero judgement contained in that paragraph of whether there is anything wrong with Lee's actions. Indeed, as I read it, I personally find it absurd that anyone should care about the phrasing. And that's exactly what is interesting in the theme of this section: that the Congresswoman's critics consider a very (overly, to me) wide range of her publicity to be "seeking." There's no reason to throw this down the memory whole just because (I assume?) you think some people are going to form a negative judgement of Lee from the paragraph. Perhaps just as many will think "give her a break!" Unless you are disputing that this ever happened at all, I contend that censoring the item would be implicitly POV - a judgement on the event. Our job is just to report that it happened and someone threw a fit (part of a history of people throwing fits re. things like this).--67.101.69.112 22:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, but the problem with the paragraph was that it simply stated that the event occurred, then placed it under a criticism section, with no actual citations about there having been criticism of the event. If the prose had said something like ... "Blah blah group criticized SJL for X," I would've had much less of an issue with it, but that's not what it said. Beyond veracity issues, apparently. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Did it happen? What's the source? -Willmcw 22:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
" "Barbara Jordan Memorial Service, Sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee" receives zero Google hits. Until we can find a source I'm removing it. -Willmcw 23:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. I had assumed the paragrah had originally been added in good faith, but if it doesn't show up in google at all, not even on a forum or anything, I'd say it's unlikely it was a controversy.--67.101.69.112 23:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enron etc.

Will, I added that information back when I was trying to cut back on the amount of specious criticisms (I thought, erroneously I suppose, that Rangerdude would be assuaged by some real criticism). It was from a Chronicle article, I'll have to go dig the specific citation out of Nexis, but I'll do it tomorrow. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. When I looked at the Open Secrets reports for her campaigns, [3] and previous, the amounts did not seem huge, and many other contributors gave more. Also our wording implies that the corporation gave the money, when I assume we mean that its employees gave it. -Will Beback 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the tag because I found a large PAC payment on Open Secrets in 1994. We should probably still fix the wording, but otherwise it appears generally correct. Sorry for the bother, -Will Beback 11:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I just stumbled onto this page. The language and scope of it is much more that of a critical article than an unbiased encyclopedia entry. I think it needs to have a NPOV tag put back on, or at the very least, some substantial work needs to be done to moderate the tone of voice and slant. Notmyrealname 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playing Race and Gender Cards

I just deleted this section as POV. The section cited two incidents, one of her accusing the chair of a subcommittee for cutting her off possibly because she is a Black woman, and the other of her accusing the local Republican party in Texas of dirty tricks with her photo. First off, the wiki entry for race card notes that this accusation is generally used to stir up controversy. It also notes that one uses this tactic to gain a political advantage. The hearing was on a rather obscure issue relating to NASA. Not exactly the kind of issue that involves issues of race allegations, nor would one gain an obvious advantage by invoking charges of racism. The citation used does not make it clear whether her charge was well founded or not. The citation for the second incident does not back up the claim made by the author of the entry, that the photo of her was part of a series. Further, the citation (Jackson Lee's website) makes it clear that it was SHE who accused the Republicans of "using the race card" by using a photo of her without identifying her, thus leaving the impression that a Black woman was supporting the agenda of the group of Republicans in the photo. Without further evidence to the contrary, her arguement sounds convincing. In any case, these two incidents do not appear to substantiate an accusation that Jackson Lee falsely accuses people of racism for political gain. Notmyrealname 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphen

What's our source for the hyphen? The subject's Congressional website doesn't use one.[4]. -Will Beback · † · 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The google for this subject's website does: [5] 1ne 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But I don't see anywhere on the website where a hyphen is used. I do see that her Congressional bio uses a hyphen[6] but not her campaign website.[7] Since the subject's two official websites both omit the hyphen that appears to be her preferred spelling. -Will Beback · † · 03:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But her Congressional bio uses a hyphen. 1ne 03:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned that. But don't you think that the two websites she controls directly are more authoritative? -Will Beback · † · 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt she writes her Congressional website. 1ne 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine she has more active involvement in those two websites than in her very short Congressional biography. What prompted you to make the move? -Will Beback · † · 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Her congressional biography. 1ne 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The official list of House Members prepared by the Clerk of the House includes the hyphen, as does the Clerk's List of Duplicate and Similar Names of Members. This list is prepared based on the Members' individual preferences, so I think it can be taken as authoritative. Newyorkbrad 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think what's going on there is that House rules require representatives to be addressed by the last word in the name, so she would be referred to as "Congressman Lee" rather than "Congressman Jackson Lee". So she's "Jackson-Lee" in official congressional docs but "Jackson Lee" everywhere else. I think this should reside under "Sheila Jackson Lee" since that's what she calls herself and how she's referred to pretty much everywhere other than the Congressional clerk's site.—Chowbok ☠ 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about moon landing

Is there anything about her confusing the Mars rover mission with the moon landings and wondering if the machine would land somewhere near where the astronauts put down? 66.234.222.96 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this article should cover her entire life and legislative career, what's the significance of that error? Is it really worth devoting space to it in this short biography? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worthy of note, especially since she's on the space subcommittee. Your argument would make sense if something else had to be cut to make room for it, but you know that's not how it works. —Chowbok ☠ 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide some reliably sourced links to this that explain its relevance?Notmyrealname (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording questions

Quoting the article (as it was 10 minutes ago) : "In the 2008 Presidential election, Jackson-Lee supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, but her Congressional district voted for Clinton's opponent Barack Obama by a margin of 90% to 10%. Jackson-Lee was subsequently booed by her constituents at her district's state convention."

Maybe this paragraph needs more attention to the wording and less flipping it in and out of the article.

Is the presidential election on already? Aren't the primaries before the election?

What was the order of events? When was the district vote held? When did Johnson-Lee support Clinton?

What is the significance of the congressional district vote? Is the District choosing a delegate for the Democratic convention?

How can a district have a state convention??

Wanderer57 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The more important question is: Does this merit inclusion in a biographical page? I do not think it does. Some people booed her. So what? Notmyrealname (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Would we report that she had been applauded? I doubt it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been heated discussion and multireverts over this paragraph. The question is whether the issue is or is not high profile and controversial enough to be worth including.
Unless there is more press coverage than has been cited thus far, I tend to agree with Notmyrealname and Will_Beback.
My comments were from the POV of IF the paragraph is going to be used, it needs a bit of editing. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd also question the relevance of the subject supporting one canddate while the constituents support another. I can't recall ever seeing a similar note in any other congressional biography, and I watch a couple of dozen of them. Given all the issues here this material should not be retained. Thanks, Wanderer57, for raising the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason I even became involved in this Sheila Jackson Lee "booing incident" discussion. I noticed a handful of Congressional biographies that had been edited to include information regarding the supporting of one candidate while constituents support another and found such information to be irrelevant overall. To be fair, there has been MUCH disagreement on this issue.Smart Ways (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the consensus appears to be that this shouldn't be retained, so I'll go along with that for now, but I fail to see any Wikipedia guidelines that would say this material does not merit inclusion. If there are multiple verifiable and reliable sources stating this information[8][9][10] and multiple other prominent sources [11][12][13]discussing it, then what's the justification for leaving it out? Surely you can see that a politician being booed by members of her own party in her home district is much more notable than a politician simply being applauded. - Maximusveritas (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What I said above was "unless there is more press coverage than has been cited thus far, I tend to agree" (that the information should be left out). However, the sources that Maximusveritas listed do show broader coverage of the events in Houston, including a report in the L.A. Times. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Press coverage alone is not sufficient. It has to be notable somehow. The notability of the incident is not yet proven. If there are further actions/incidents/protests/etc., then it should be reconsidered. Otherwise this would be a case of undue weight.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Let me ask this. If the story of a District meeting in Houston had appeared (say) on the front page of the Washington Post, or the New York Times, would that press coverage alone have been sufficient? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That would depend on the story. The story seems to be about the Obama campaign, rather than some story that has significance for Jackson-Lee. Maybe that will come about. It's best to wait and see. If it's worth including now, it will be worth including later.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your explanation isn't convincing. For one, the story is definitely about Jackson-Lee much more so than Obama since it has to do with her getting booed by Democrats in her own district and the significance is what that might mean for her future re-election prospects, though that wasn't explicitly mentioned. Also, I think you are misusing the principle of undue weight, which says we shouldn't give undue weight to minority views compared to majority views. There are no other views on this matter. It's simply a fact that she was booed and it is notable as evidenced by the large number of reliable sources discussing it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that its relation to her reelection prospects wasn't mentioned in any of the stories is exactly the problem. If there are any further stories about the significance of this in relation to her political career than I agree that it should be added. As a single incident, I don't think it is important enough to be included in this short biography.Notmyrealname (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sheila Jackson-Lee's support of Hilary Clinton

Congresswoman,

Will you be watching and holding Mrs. Clinton accountable for using Karl Rove tactics in the primary against Senator Obama? Alot of Senator's recent comments and tactics have been pulled from the Karl Rove playbook. John McCain is also using these tactics as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.109.146 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous poster. This discussion page is for discussing the Shiela Jackson Lee Wikipedia article and not people's personal feelings toward Sheila Jackson Lee. In addition to it being the wrong forum, it's also highly unlikely that any member of Congress has enough time to sit around and read the discussion pages attached to their Wikipedia articles. I am sure there is a more appropriate forum in which you can address your concerns. Might I suggest sending an email to the Congresswoman's district office? Additionally, should you wish to contribute to an article about "Karl Rove's political tactics" and can do so in a NPOV manner, I'm sure you would be welcome to work on such a project. Furthermore, I would encourage you to create a Wikipedia account, learn about the "Five Pillars" (something I'm still working on) and sign your comments so that you can be fully involved in the community. I can only speak for myself but, to me, these "drive by" edits and comments tend to come off as less credible than those contributed by editors who have an account name with which to sign their edits and comments. It's really quite easy to set up an account. Smart Ways (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Also, can anyone shed some light on how to remove the formatting that the unsigned poster is using? It's really hard to read their comments. Thanks! Smart Ways (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That odd format is due to putting one or more spaces at the beginning of a line. I removed them. For example:

No space at beginning.

Space at beginning.

It is better to use colons to indent, not spaces. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)